iii. such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to
grant in the nature of this case.
2025:KER:76209
iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular document produced with this writ
petition."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Ext.P2 Form - 5
application submitted by him under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the
petitioner is that the authorised officer has not
considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am
of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has
failed to comply the statutory requirements. The
impugned order is passed by the authorised officer solely
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is
no indication in the order that the authorised officer has
directly inspected the property or called for the satellite
2025:KER:76209
pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
There is no independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as on the relevant date by the
authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has
not considered whether the exclusion of the property
would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the
competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie
and character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not
in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court
in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the
2025:KER:76209
considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 Form - 5
application in accordance with law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or,
alternatively, call for the satellite
pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
3. If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within
three months from the date of receipt of
such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally
inspect the property, the application shall
2025:KER:76209
be considered and disposed of within two
months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 14.10.2025
Judgment dictated 14.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 14.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 15.10.2025
2025:KER:76209
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37711/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 08.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
FILED ASSISTANT, THALAKKAD VILLAGE
ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 31.01.2024 UNDER THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND ACT, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.04.2025 PASSED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
